Ms Dawn Macdonald v Represented by: Mr R Clarke - Solicitor Highland Health Board — 2026

Ms Dawn Macdonald, a registered nurse and Unison Branch Secretary, brought a claim under section 146(1)(b) TULRCA alleging that Highland Health Board subjected her to detriments with the purpose of preventing or deterring her from taking part in trade union activities, or penalising her for doing so. The case concerned six alleged detriments arising from correspondence and grievance handling between August 2023 and November 2024, including the August 2023 letter, the collective grievance arising from the Succoth ward meeting, two letters from managers in July and August 2024, and events on 5 and 15 November 2024.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Macdonald represented members with commitment and passion, but found she had limited insight into how her approach was perceived by managers. It found that the August 2023 letter was not directed at her personally and was intended to open discussion about improving partnership working. It also accepted the managers' evidence that the 21 November 2023 meeting led to the collective grievance because they felt undermined and humiliated, and that the later correspondence from Ms Watt and Ms Williams arose from genuine concerns about conduct and working relationships rather than a purpose of preventing or deterring trade union activity. In analysing the claim, the tribunal referred to the approach in University College London v Brown, Yewdall v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Morris v Metrolink Bus Rapid Transit Ltd, and Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd.

For the two allegations within time, the tribunal held that Mr Beswick did not tell Ms Ballantyne that the respondent did not want the claimant involved in the Succoth grievance. It found that he was seeking clarification about who the union contact would be and how the grievance could proceed, against the background of a strained relationship between the claimant and Ms Gillespie. The tribunal also held that the 5 November 2024 letter was a legitimate use of Unison's review procedure in response to the Unison outcome letter addressed only to Ms Gillespie, and that it did not amount to a detriment. Because those allegations failed on their merits, they could not extend time, and the earlier allegations were out of time. The claim was therefore dismissed in full.